Home Forums Discussions Problems Question about RAID

So if I want a RAID server, without actually buying a pre-made unit with RAID5, and an OS I am not familiar with...

Can I just buy an external RAID5 array with hot swappable hard drives, and its own hardware card and cable?

Can I install Amazingcharts database on the external array, and not have to install it in the server...

In case it crash, then at least I can replace the computer by removing the card, and plugging it into another system (with either XP or Win 7)?

What I mean to say its, based on my limitted understanding of RAID, I can buy a RAID1 mirrored desktop for about $600 with Win7 pro, or spend north of of $1300 for a RAID5 with server 2008.

Why can't I just spend about $500 for an external raid5 drive and put it on my current computer and migrate the database to it?

Pinetree,

You would be much better off from a cost standpoint to obtain RAID with your server. Hardware RAID makes all the disks involved in the volume appear to be a single drive to the operating system so there is no management from the operating system's point of view. You can have your RAID volumen configured out the door by your OEM.

The problem with the approach you are discussing is performance. If you go with a cheaper external RAID array, then you will most likely connect using firewire or USB and that will be slow for Amazing Charts. But then, if you go iSCSI, the price skyrockets to almost that of a whole new server.

If I may ask, why are you interested in RAID 5? That version of RAID requires more disks and is more expensive than RAID 1.

RAID 5 is disk striping with parity and requires at least three like disks.

RAID 1 is disk mirroring and requires two like disks.

For the vast majority on this forum, I would be hard pressed to recommend more than RAID 1.

JamesNT

Other than cost is there a downside of RAID5 compared to RAID1?

That depends on who you ask.

With RAID1, you lose one whole hard drive of space. So, if you had two 126GB drives in a RAID1, you would only be able to use 126GB. In a RAID5, every drive you put in it can be used with the exception of one drive for parity. So, if you want a ton of space, RAID5 is easier.

RAID1 gives you a slight read advantage. RAID5 is more processor intensive. I doubt you will note any of these. As far as redundancy:

RAID1: Can lose one drive only
RAID5: Can lose one drive only
RAID10: Can lose one drive in each mirrored set for a total of two, UNLESS the two drives are in the same mirror.

As to what people do:

RAID1 as James prefers
RAID5 as many prefer as well
RAID1 of OS and RAID5 for data as I do with two hard drive controllers
RAID10: Many people are moving to this configuration. I will likely use it next time. Good redundancy. Good performance.

FYI: A common mistake: The more drives you add to a RAID5 configuration, the lower your redundancy gets, although performance increases.

Bottomline: Ask 100 people which beer they prefer. You'll get less of an argument than if you ask 100 IT people what RAID is best. You can't go wrong with any of them. Unless you go with external RAID or software RAID.

I'm personally a big fan of RAID5 with 3 drives, 1 hot spare, and a couple more drives tray-ed and in racked standby if there are slots and sufficient power & cooling.

As aside, if you are buying a RAID controller and dropping it into a desktop chassis, you need to pay attention to power and cooling; they will be typically limited.

I guess when I was reading about rebuilding a raid1 setup, it appears to be more complicated, and the support from the manufacturer of the system was none, to little.

The RAID5 with hot swappable drive sounds a little less intimidating.

When I was reading about the rebuilding process taking 8 hours to days, and some of the old drivers have to be updated, etc.. it seems like it not worth the headache. You might as well back up from a day old back up to a new computer, and not worry about the "redundancy" for a 1 doctor practice.

Has anyone used a Drobo?
www.drobo.com/resources/beyondraid.php
www.drobo.com/products/drobopro/index.php

I have heard GREAT things about it. Glad you brought it up.

So, my understanding of RAID5 external hard drives is that I have to install the adapter, hook it up, and reinstall the OS so that is stored on the RAID5 drives. The os and the data.

But with DROBO, the harddrives are installed, hooked up via USB2 or firewire, then it has its own driver that makes the OS recognize it as just another hard drive.

Then I will simply drop the AC data base there? And it should work, perhaps not as fast as if it were in the AC program file, in the computer on the same hard drive as the OS?

Optimally, you want to combine the two. Most rebuilds do not take days. More like 24 hours. Redundancy is not even close to backups. I would much rather have a drive go down, pull it out and pop in another and let the RAID controller rebuild it while I continue working.

I would hope if you used your backup you would install a new drive and restore not try to restore to a new computer. Most backups are not compatible with a new computer IF you are doing a bare metal restore.

For Drobos, I have implemented a couple, and they are generally very effective for their price point. If you don't have a firewire port, it is *well* worth the cost of getting one for the performance improvement.

My bride has one that she uses in her Mac based editing environment - it takes a minimum a 3TB array to edit larger projects.

THe other implementation is a smaller enterprise setup where the Drobo is near-line storage of recent backups before the backups are run off to a tape drive.

the only real downside is that it uses it's own proprietary software, so the end-user has very limited control.

For your purposes a Drobo with Firewire is probably a good fit.

OK, we have to take a closer look at these technologies before jumping into them. There are three technologies: NAS or Network Attached Storage, DAS or Direct Attached Storage and SAN or Storage Attached Network.

A NAS always attaches to the network and, therefore, is not capable of running applications. A DAS and SAN can attach via many cables such as iSCSI, Firewire, USB and Ethernet directly to a server. The server generally sees these as another local drive. However, in almost all cases, these are used as storage for the network and backup for the server.

On Amazing Charts' website, it states that an NAS will not be supported, and they strongly encourage you not to. If you are going to put a database on an external drive, then an SAN is the only one recommened.

This is the Microsoft KB article pertaining to installing SQL Server on an external drive.

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=304261

After an extensive look at Drobo's website and going through every model, nowhere does it recommend using Drobo's SAN capabilities to run database applications.

For one thing, now you have an OS on a server which can go down as well as the external appliance such as the Drobo which can go down.

Frankly, I do not see the advantage of installing SQL server anywhere else but the server in the system disk. By default, SQL Server Express will install there.

You can buy a RAID1 mirrored desktop for about $600 with WIN7 Pro or spend north of $1300 for a RAID5 with Server 2008.

OK, the difference: When you are finished with the cheaper WIN7 version, you end up with a cheaper WIN7 version. The RAID5 on Server 2008 is FAR SUPERIOR to the WIN7.

You can spend $500 for an external RAID5 drive, but you will find that unless it is set up completely right and the external drive supports running database applications and not just file backups, you are in trouble.

Personally, if you are considering a server, I would go that route. Put a RAID10 on it and be done with it. But, please go with SBS 2011 or 2009 and not just straight Server 2008.

Finally, your connection would be your limiting factor. eSATA connections which would not work with your external drives in the capacity you are referring to run at 3Gb/s. And even though USB2 and Firewire are rated less than an internal hard drive, a lot of the speed differences are negligible for a variety of reasons.

Thanks for the complete explanation of RAID and external drives.

I have been looking at the RAID5 server by dell and others, but I am a little intimidated by the server 2008, as I barely know how to maintain XP, Win 7, etc.

If you have server 2008, what antivirus would you use? I currently use Macafee, and feel that at times, it acts more like a virus and cause problems, and reinstallation is needed as some of their automatic updates can stop a computer. Are there some antivirus/firewall software that are better for server applications? I mean, the server is pretty much dedicated to AC and not for browsing or downloading anything?

If server 2008 is as easy to turn on, install AC, and link up like XP or Win7, then I am fine. But if it requires alot of setting up and technical knowhow, I am a little intimidated.

First, it is important to understand that for servers, you must use enterprise type antivirus such as Trend Micro or NOD32 or the server-edition of AVG. I would run as far away as possible from Norton or McAfee.

Microsoft finally has its own product:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/da...virus-engine-to-servers/3853?tag=nl.e071

You would have a central server AV solution such as ESET NOD32 which controls your clients and then the server solution.

I and Susan Bradley (the guru of SBS) do not use AV protection on our servers.

I can understand being intimidated by Server 2008, which is why I would go with Small Business Server, but if you have not installed a server OS by yourself, I wouldn't suggest it.

I wasn't necessarily recommending it, I was just answering your question about WIN7 cost vs Server 2008 cost.

There is always Micrsoft Foundation Server, which is good to go and you can get a Dell or HP server already loaded with SBS 2008.

Most server software that is Windows based comes with its own firewall. You are very correct and it is why I don't use AV on the server is that you not doing anything on it that could get you a virus.

People on here are going to hassle me, because I am pushing a non server. But, I don't see anything wrong with going with WIN7 without RAID. There is nothing that says you must have RAID. But, as you say, you could use a RAID1.

Have you looked into a WIN7 solution with CDP (Continuous Data Protection) by a company such as Sonic Wall, which is compatible with WIN7?

Finally, and I don't think people consider use, but there is no reason why, if you use a server, that you must set it up as a domain and Active Directory. Sure, that is like buying a Porsche and driving 45 mph, but you can just set up the server and use it as your "main computer" as a peer-to-peer workgroup.

Linking up to AC and XP or WIN7 is the same with a server as it is with a "main computer" if not easier. Setting up the server would be more difficult.

Having operated multiple vendor products in the the enterprise setting, they are not equal, and some are abysmal in the SMB market-place.

If you are spending money, for the money I recommend Sophos. [Disclosure - I have a business relationship with them, but that is because we settled on them as the superior solution]
As a licensed or managed solution you can install remotely, scan remotely, and most importantly see a dashboard of the status of the machines on your network. Runs quietly, and very rarely is noticeable in either performance or interrupting your work unless it finds a 'bad' thing.

About once a quarter when talking with the CEOs & business principals about how their IT is functioning and what they want done, it's useful(entertaining) to tell them how many times they were protected from attacks; generally from the websites they went to on their machine. Preventative money well spent.

By default we install AV on every machine and server; MTA servers (ie. Exchange, Postfix) get a very custom install. If anyone other than the sys-admins have the admin passwords we choose to be professionally paranoid.


My opinion about sever setup is biased; like asking any of you providers how hard it is to see a patient .... but the tools have come a long way.

A simple rule is no/off - kind of like the default Cisco setting ~"Deny All". If you don't know what it is, or what it does, say NO. If it turns out you need it, you can always go back and turn it on in services, or install it later.

I have not seen too many server level AV programs which manage the clients that does not have a dashboard.:)

So, I am tempted to get a windows 7 pro system desk top in 1 of 2 configurations:

Sometype of pentium quad core generic system with 8gb ram, and either 2 (1TB) 7200 rpm harddrives in RAID1, or 3 (1TB) drives in RAID5.

I am now backing up nightly to the online AC server, and to an external fireproof HD.

It seems like either system (identical in all ways, except the RAID config, and the number of harddrives) would be better than what I have now in ....

Which would give better AC performance? RAID1 or RAID5? I think some say that 1 is faster for write intensive applications, and 5 is faster for read intensive applications. Or it really doesn't matter.

I did look at the continous data protection programs.... I think IBM offered a single user edition for like $49 a year... But I question if it would cause any conflict with AC and its functions.

Absolutely true. Having used most of them, some are more useful than others. The really useful ones are intuitive, powerful and allows the user to quickly assess the status of network, and individual machines.

FYI - pricing virtualization servers and shared storage (iSCSI) for an SMB client, the price difference between hot-swappable drives at the commodity point (currently 500G), is ~$80; between SATA drives and 15k SAS drives. Solid-State Drives are available, but they are quite pricey,

I am probably going to get a RAID1 set up...

I am trying IBM trivoli continous data protection software, and having it backed up to my external usb hard drive. It seems to be running well enough. I think I will start a separate discussion on this and see if other have experience with it.